alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Aero-M Maintenance

In order to maintain the continued safe operation o f the Aero-M platform and to maintain it running at its optimal performance, we will maintain the Ae ro-M aircraft at the following intervals: If any part of the Aero-M or its support equipment show signs of fatigue or damage, it will be immediately grounded until the component has been p roperly replaced by PIC per manufacturer

recommendations.

Every flight -Inspect the batteries for any signs of damage or a bnormality as well as operating voltage. -Inspect motor for any signs of abnormal wear, roug h movement, or contact. -Inspect propeller for any cracks, debris, or abnor malities. -Inspect fuselage for any cracks or abnormalities. -Clean dusty components with compressed air or a so ft cloth. -Perform Safety Check

Every 30 days or 10 hours of flight (whichever come s first) -Cycle flight batteries -Perform Safety Check -Run motor and observe for any wobble, abnormal sou nd or roughness. -Inspect motor mount and fasteners to ensure tight and secure. -Inspect fuselage for any cracks or abnormalities. -Inspect main wing, vertical and horizontal stabili zers for cracks or warps -Inspect all control linkages and connectors. -Inspect all surface hinges for cracks or tears -Replace main wing rubber bands. -Inspect condition and voltage of PIC controller an d controller battery

Annually or every 300 hours of flight (whichever co mes first) -Inspect motor mount -Replace motor -Replace propeller -Replace all flight battery sets -Replace PIC controller battery -Inspect and clean all electrical connections -Check for firmware update -Recalibrate magnetometer -Inspect all control linkages and connectors -Replace main wing rubber bands -Perform Safety Check -Inspect main wing, vertical, and horizontal stabil izers for cracks or warps -Inspect all surface hinges for cracks or tears -Inspect all movable surfaces for wear
#### Margaret ARRANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28991.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 1, 1957.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*657PER CURIAM.

The conviction, on a plea of guilty before the court, is for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area, two counts; the punishment, a fine of $200.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<PAGE>                    
<NAME>  DH TECHNOLOGY, INC                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         30,943
<SECURITIES>                                   13,835
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,197
<INVENTORY>                                    11,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               75,247
<PP&E>                                         22,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                 14,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 97,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,218
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       13,168
<OTHER-SE>                                     69,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   97,105
<SALES>                                       115,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              115,784
<CGS>                                          74,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  74,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                20,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                    7,450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,027
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.56
        




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

               Subsidiaries of Axiohm Transaction Solutions, Inc.


Name of Subsidiary                                Jurisdiction of Incorporation

Axiohm IPB, Inc.                                  Delaware (USA)

Axiohm S.A.R.L.                                   France

Axiohm Investissements                            France

Dardel Technologies, E.U.R.L.                     France

Axiohm Limited                                    Hong Kong

Axiohm Japan Inc.                                 Japan

DH Technology plc                                 United Kingdom*

DH Tecnologia de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico

DH Technology Ltd.                                Australia

Stadia Colorado Corp.                             Colorado (USA)

Cognitive Solutions, Inc.                         California (USA)
EXHIIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Island Critical Care on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         1.     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.     the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Company.


Dated:  October 4, 2004           /s/ Marc Juliar
                                  ----------------------
                                  Name: Marc Juliar
                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  October 4, 2004           /s/ Marc Juliar
                                  ----------------------
                                  Name: Marc Juliar
                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein (a) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-192321), and (b) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-187439)of our report dated March 19, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. appearingin the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2013 and to the reference tous under the heading “Experts” in each Prospectus contained in the Registration Statements.

 

Denver, Colorado

March 28, 2014

/s/ Comiskey & Company

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
AAM-10-260-E 

May 20, 2010 

 Exemption No. 10067 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0461 

Mr. Matt Rupe 

Director of Operations 

Vertical Advantage Helicopters, Inc. 

2460 Greentree Road 

Lebanon, OH 45036 

Dear Mr. Rupe: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 13, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Vertical Advantage Helicopters, Inc. (Vertical Advantage), for an exemption from 

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, 

would allow Vertical Advantage, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Vertical Advantage. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Vertical Advantage Helicopter, Inc., an exemption from 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Vertical Advantage, which is operating under 

separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing 

program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Vertical Advantage are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

 Vertical Advantage part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Rpr 22 10 05:12p Frank Krall and/or Travel 81453G4385 p.l 

Page 1 Ot 1 

Subj: Comments 

Date: 4/22/2010 4:57:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time ^>_ o r^ ,i,.^ v 

From: WINNER0109@aol.com t)o ^ - OM^-o'00'^ _ Uq^ ^ \ 

To: EAS@dot.pov 

I am writing to voice my supi>ort for the decision of the Cambria County 

Airport Authority to request tha t Colgan Air be chosen as the airline to 

continue providing commute r air service between Johnstown, PA and 

Dulles Airport in Washington. 

if it's not broken, don't fix it. All is going well and both parties wish it to 

continue. The necessary logistics regarding schedules, baggage handling 

etc. ar e in place and ^vorking. Why mess it up . 

I am writing as an individual and part time travel agent. In fact, I an d a 

friend ar e going to Barcelona, Spain this July to board a cruise ship. I 

was able to make very favorable air arrangement for us by using th e 

Johnstown Cambria County Airport. The access ability to connecting 

flights through Dulles is much greate r than Pittsburgh and people would 

find th e convenience if they take th e time to check things out. The locals 

need to d o mor e education on this point. ^ 

In conclusion, I vote in favor of awarding th e Essential Air Service 

contracts for service to Johnstown, Pa. t o th e current supplier Colgan Air. 

Frank Krall 

Johnstown, PA 

814-536-4385 

I TRIED TO E MAIL THIS TO YOU YESTERDAY BUT IT 

WAS RETURNED BECAUSE OF A BAD ADDRESS. 

THANK YOU! 

Thursday, April 22, 2010 AOL: WINNER0109
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1640 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1640

  To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to bring the 
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into the regular appropriations 
                    process, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

  Mr. Posey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to bring the 
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into the regular appropriations 
                    process, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Consumer Financial 
Protection Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. BRINGING THE BUREAU INTO THE REGULAR APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.

    Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by amending the heading of such subsection to 
                read as follows: ``Budget, Financial Management, and 
                Audit.--'';
                    (B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
                    (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 
                paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
                    (D) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated--
                            (i) by striking subparagraph (E); and
                            (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as 
                        subparagraph (E);
            (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
            (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
        (b) and (c), respectively; and
            (4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
                    (A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and 
                inserting the following:
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
        to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out 
        this title for fiscal year 2012.''; and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
                (2).
                                 <all>
```
#### Marvin WADDLETON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28101.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1956.

*658. No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

' PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or hills: of exception. All proceedings appear to he regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed
#### Joe HAGLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27479.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 16, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is passing as true a forged instrument, with a prior conviction for an offense of like character alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, five years.

Boggus, manager of the Piggly-Wiggly store in Ranger, testified that the appellant came to his store on the day in question, cashed a check in the sum of $29.75 drawn on the Strawn National Bank bearing the name of Billie Lou Kyle as maker, and that the check was returned to him unpaid. It was shown that the. Strawn National Bank had no -account in the name of Billie Lou Kyle and that such person was unknown in Strawn or Ranger.

To show system, evidence was introduced that the appellant gave other checks drawn on the same bank at about t-he same time and that each of them bore the name of a fictitious maker.

It was established that the appellant was the same individual'who'had been convicted of the offense of like character plead in the indictment.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

• There are no bills of exception in the record. - -

Appellant’s'motion to quash the indictment alleges that ho offense is stated therein because the primary paragraph does not conclude with the words “ ‘against the peace and dignity of the State.’ ” We do find that the enhancement paragraph concludes with such an allegation. It is not necessary, nor is it good pleading, to make such a recitation more than once in an indictment, and the Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St.Const. art. 5, § 12, requires that it be at the conclusion. See Nabors v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 465, 131 S.W.2d 962.

The motion further alleges that the indictment is insufficient because it does not state whom the .appellant intended to defraud.

*270We quote from Branch’s' Ann.P.C., section, 1399, page 854:

> *“Alleging intent to defraud.*— It is not necessary to allege whom defendant intended to defraud. It is sufficient to allege, in the language of the - statute, that the false instrument in writing was made without lawful au- . thority and with intent to defraud.”

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Mrs. G. L. LEFTWICH, Appellant, v. Owen COTTRELL, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 1, 1957.

George R. Smith, Lexington, for appellant.

Miller & Griffin by Robin Griffin, Lexington, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have before us a motion for appeal from a judgment on a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff, disallowing a $1,700 counterclaim by the defendant.

Upon examination of the record and the briefs, we are of the opinion the trial court properly denied the defendant relief because the alleged oral contract on which she bases her claim was one of suretyship and was without consideration.

The motion for appeal is denied, and the judgment stands affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL J. ANTONOFF,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3055

[ July 13, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Krista Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CF005323AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Richard B. Greene, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         807,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,236,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                   227,000
<INVENTORY>                                     22,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,415,891
<PP&E>                                      10,680,870
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,864,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,218,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,940,144
<BONDS>                                     11,014,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,485
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,437,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,218,234
<SALES>                                      1,091,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,627,286
<CGS>                                          836,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  836,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             461,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (448,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (74,909)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (374,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  99,331
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (274,754)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1308 

AN ACT 

To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act 

to extend the termination date for the Commission, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1308 EH

1 SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN CENTENNIAL COMMISSION 

2 ACT AMENDMENTS. 

3 (a) FINAL REPORT DUE DATE.—Section 7(c) of the 

4 Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act (Public Law 

5 111–25; 36 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘April 30, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘November 30, 2011’’. 

7 (b) TERMINATION.—Section 8 of the Ronald Reagan 

8 Centennial Commission Act (Public Law 111–25; 36 

9 U.S.C. 101 note prec.) is amended by striking ‘‘May 30, 

10 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2011’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1308 

AN ACT 

To amend the Ronald Reagan Centennial CommisCommission, and for other purposes. sion Act to extend the termination date for the
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11845-11846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03110]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director; Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the 
charter for the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board, was renewed 
for an additional two-year period on February 7, 2024.

[[Page 11846]]

    It is determined that the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board, 
is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties 
imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these 
duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this 
group.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#573f3625253e24343b173a363e3b79393e3f79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="066e6774746f75656a466b676f6a28686f6e28616970">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 9, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03110 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>